My by-line is on this article because it involves some very sensitive conversations that I have had and opinions about them that are best discussed in the first person. I am revealing the name of the Navy master chief who last November told an acquaintance of his that on the evening of July 17, 1996, he was on the bridge of the USS Trepang, a submarine that was practically underneath TWA Flight 800 when the plane exploded and crashed into the sea.

His acquaintance, whose name I wont disclose because it adds nothing to the story, had called me the night before on a line in my office that had been used to take calls for the TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance generated by an ad placed in The Washington Times on August 15, 2000. He shared our views about the cause of the crash, and we had a good conversation. The next morning he called again to tell me that he had just run into a casual acquaintance who was a retired Navy petty officer. Because of his discussion with me the night before, he brought up TWA 800. Here is an edited partial transcript of our conversation. [H for him and I for me]

H: Have you ever heard of the submarine Tripanga? I: It rings a bell H: He was a master chief on the Tripanga, on the surface, underneath TWA 800, when he saw a missile hit it, and the 747 exploded overhead, and they did an emergency dive, crash dive, to avoid being hit by the debris. They were interviewed by the FBI. They had two- or three-star admirals meet them at the dock when they were recalled to port 20 hours later after filing their reports. I: What was their position? Were they off Long Island? H: They were on the surface, underneath TWA 800. I: Right underneath? H: Yup. And they have the debris falling around them on film from the periscope. Because they started the video camera to record what was going on. Did you ever hear any of that? I: That I have never heard. (Discuss spelling of the name of the submarine. It is Trepang.) You know the Navy denied that it had any assets closer than the Normandy, which was supposed to be 180 miles away. Little by little, they had to admit that they had submarines that were closer, and the radar showed three targets that were close to the shore. They had very short tracks. When the plane came down, they disappeared. I infer that they were submarines that were on the surface and then dived. H: He also saw the incoming helicopter, the National Guard helicopter. They were right on the scene. I: Wow. Is he retired? H: I believe he is. Yes. I: Is he willing to go on record? H: I dont know that. I asked him if what he told me was classified information, and he told me it was not. I: Do you mind telling me his name? H: I do not. It is Randy, and the last name is Beers....He is out of work right now. I: You dont have a phone number for him do you? H: I do not. I dont know him that well. I: Was he under wraps? H: He didnt indicate to me that he was. He said he gave a statement to the FBI. He said they checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they left port with. They inventoried the armament of the boat. I: Did he say that they were part of an exercise that night? H: Yes, he did. I asked him if there were other military vessels in the area. He said, Yes, several. I: Ill try to track the guy down. H: I cant believe that I had a conversation with you just last night, and I ran into him half an hour ago. I: God works in mysterious ways.

I obtained Beers phone number from information and found him willing to talk. In our taped interview, he was somewhat more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didnt want to do anything that might mess up his retirement, but nothing was said about the conversation being off the record. I told him that I was with Accuracy in Media and recommended that he visit our Web site, where he would find a lot of articles we had written about TWA 800. The following is a partial transcript of the taped interview. I did not begin taping at the very beginning of the conversation. The transcript begins where the taping started. This was Thurs., Nov. 15 at 10:00 a.m.

B: I told everything, you know, when the Navy came on board with everybody else on my submarine. I: What was the name of the sub. B: Trepang. (spells it) I: You were off the coast of Long Island that night. B: Uh huh. I: And you said the Navy-- Go ahead. Tell me. B: You know, I dont want anything to mess up my retirement. I. Yes. Well, I dont see how telling the truth can mess up your retirement, Randy. That would be the scandal of the day if they were to- - B: I told them all the truth, you know, when they came, Reed. I: Yeh. And what did you tell them. B: You know, that me and Mr. Leitner were on the bridge. Mr. Leitner was the officer of the deck. (Discuss spelling of Leitner, pronounced Late-ner.) I: Go ahead. B: So me and Mike Leitner were on the bridge and he was, you know, he would control the submarine. And the only reason I was up there was cause I was the second senior enlisted guy on the boat. I was ships corpsman and I went up there just cause, well first off cause it was a nice evening. Cause I never went out in the rain, you know, and I had a couple of Diet Pepsis, so me and Mike Leitner shared a couple of Pepsis and hanging out and one thing leads to another and it looks like somethin went up and somethin come down. I: You saw it go up and you saw it come down. B: Well, I seen something come up. I dont know, you know, I dont know what the hell it was, but thats what it looked, you know, somethin went up. I: How far away from the sub was it? B: It was about a mile. I: Which way? Out to sea or toward the shore? B: I dont have the navigation charts in front of me, and I cant remember exactly. I mean, you know, but I know we was- I. How far from the shore were you? B: A few miles, not far. I: Only a few miles. B: Yeah, not far at all. I: Were there a couple of other subs nearby? B: We were operating with some, yeah. I: The reason I say that is because the radar picked up three targets on the surface that had very short tracks. They all disappeared when the plane went down. B: Yeah, thats what we did. I: I mentioned that to Jim Kallstrom, who, you know, headed the FBI investigation. B: Yes. I: And I said, you know the FBI wont even tell us. This was after he retired, and I said the FBI wont even tell us what those targets were, and he said, Oh, I can tell you what they were. B: Submarines. I: He said they were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. Thats interesting because he never said-- Oh, he said, Ive said that in public, but I had no record of him... B: Oh shit. I dont think anything we did off Long Island was classified. I: Is that so? Wasnt there a Navy maneuver out there that night? B: Oh yeah. I: Because there were a lot of Navy ships that seemed to be heading out for W-105. B: Uh huh. I: Is that right? B: Yes. I: Yeh. You had the P-3 overhead and we got radar that shows there was an airplane without a transponder that was caught on the radar, primary radar, that was sort of doing a racetrack, going in and out of W-105, coming out and going back in again. B: Yeah. I: So it looked like there was something interesting going on there. Were you guys supposed to be targets for the P-3 or- B: You know, this is getting. Im uncomfortable with saying what we was actually doing. I: Okay, never mind. Skip that. B: And if you want, if you sent me something in writing then I could respond better. Cause Ive never met you. I: Sure. B: And you know-- I: I'll tell you what. You can go to our Web site. Are you on the computer? B: Not right now. I: No, but you have a computer. B: Yes. I: Let me refer you to our Web site. Its aim.org. Weve written a lot about TWA 800. Theres a couple of other Web sites that are very good that have a lot of primary documents on them. One is twa800.com. B: Yeah, Ive seen that one. I: Thats Cmdr. Bill Donaldsons site. Bill Donaldson worked closely with us. He just passed away a few months ago from a brain tumor, a hell of a guy. And he put a lot of his time and effort into this investigation. He was absolutely convinced that it was a missile that brought the thing down, and he collected a lot of information. He interviewed a lot of eyewitnesses that confirmed that. Let me tell you a little about what bugs us, and that is that the government-Did you ever see the CIA video that shows the simulation of what happened? B: Oh, yeah. I: That was based on the presumption that none of these eyewitnesses saw anything but the TWA 800. And that the fuel tank blew up and that explosion took the front end of the plane off and - B: The rest of the plane continued on. I: And the tail dropped back and it went up at a sharp angle, over 3000 feet before it came down again. Which all the aviation people Ive talked to say is absolute nonsense. If you lose your front end you lose your- - B: Yeah, that aint happening. I: -your power you arent going to climb like a rocket. Youre going to fall like a rock, which is what the radar shows it did. (A long description of the CIAs lie about what eyewitness Michael Wire saw is omitted.) B: I dont mean to cut you short. Ive got to take my daughter to a doctors appointment in two minutes. I was about out the door. I: Okay. Well talk again. Go to our Web site and youll see. B: Okay. Ill check it out today. I: Okay B: Thank you. Goodbye.

I called Randy again the next morning, Friday, Nov. 16. He asked me to call him back Monday morning, Nov. 19. I did, and I found myself talking to an entirely different person. The confident, courageous master chief had been transformed into a quivering moral coward. He said he had talked to his skipper over the weekend and that he had been reminded that he had signed certain papers when he retired from the Navy. Whoever it was that he had talked to had scared him to death. He feared that he was going to lose his retirement because of what he told me. He claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded.

I said I didnt want to hurt him and that there was no way the Navy could rescind his disability pension because he told the truth about what he had seen on the evening of July 17, 1996. Something had obviously gone wrong and they had successfully covered it up, but that too was wrong. It would be a scandal if they tried to deprive him of his pension because he had helped expose an illegal, immoral cover-up of a mistake that had cost the lives of 230 people. Cmdr. William S. Donaldson, who tried very hard to pin the blame on terrorists, told me several times that if it turned out that the Navy was responsible he would spearhead a demand that the officers behind it be court-martialed.

I told Randy that he had a moral obligation to go public with what he knew and to help us expose the cover-up. I cited the example set by another chief petty officer, Kathleen Janoski, who was in charge of photography for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Dover Air Force Base. She had found and photographed the perfectly round hole, about the diameter of a .45-caliber bullet, in the top of the head of the late Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. She had also photographed what was called the lead snowstorm inside his skull that showed up on the head x-ray. She took photos of the x-rays that were up on a light box, and it was a good thing that she did, because the one showing the lead snowstorm was destroyed. The colonel in charge rejected recommendations of three lieutenant colonels that an autopsy be performed on Browns body.

Kathleen Janoski had put her job at risk when she was still on active duty. She was relieved of her duties, and she feared she was going to be court-martialed. But she nevertheless shared her photos with Chris Ruddy who reported on the suspicious hole in the top of Ron Browns head and the lead snowstorm in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. I suggested that he ought to show as much courage as she had. Kathleen Janoski retired and is drawing her pension.

Nothing I could say had any effect. He explained that he had lost his job, and although his wife was working, they would be in deep trouble if he lost his pension. I can sympathize with him, but there are whistleblowers in the government who risk their jobs by exposing wrongdoing. If we want to encourage more government employees to follow their example it would make sense to reward the whistleblowers and punish those who see the wrongdoing but seal their lips and close their eyes. I couldnt budge Randy Beers, but one of the significant things about that conversation was that he did not deny the truth of anything he had told me when we first talked.

When Pierre Salinger held a press conference in March 1997 and declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. Senator and ABC News correspondent, was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues in the media. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who had a friend whose son was in the Navy. The son was said to have called home and told his family that we shot down the airliner. Salinger said the father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy wanted to keep hidden. That, of course, was dismissed as hearsay.

We succeeded in verifying that Randy Beers was a chief petty officer on the Trepang and that he was the ships corpsman. We verified that Lt. Michael Leitner, with whom he drank Diet Pepsi on the Trepangs bridge on the evening of July 17, 1996, was also a member of the crew. What Beers said about the Navy ships in the area that night and the exercise that was being conducted confirmed what we already knew from the radar data obtained by the Flight 800 Independent Research Organization, FIRO, and what Jim Kallstrom had told me about the three Navy vessels on a classified maneuver.

I wrote a column about what Randy Beers had revealed, but I did not include in it his name or the name of his submarine. Finding someone in the Navy who was willing to talk as freely as he did was an important breakthrough. He was the answer to those who were sure that the Navy could not have been responsible for shooting down TWA 800 because it would have been impossible to keep a secret like that when so many Navy personnel would have known about it. In the five and a half years since TWA 800 was shot down we heard stories about Navy personnel who had told family or friends that the Navy did it, but we were never able to make contact with them.

The response to the column was encouraging even though it did not get the attention of the big media. I was persuaded by the e-mail I received that we should reveal Randy Beers name and the name of his submarine. The Navy had claimed that the Trepang was 117 miles from the TWA 800 crash site. The exposure of that lie and the fact that it took so long for someone on the sub to expose it should have shaken up those who have so confidently insisted that a secret like that could not remain hidden for long. However, I was surprised to get a few responses from individuals who completely missed this important lesson. The claim that the Navy couldnt have done anything wrong because someone would have revealed it, dies hard.

My last conversation with Randy Beers was on February 5. I wanted to tell him that I was going to reveal his name, and I left a message saying it was important that he call me. He did. He first asked me if I was recording the call. I wasnt and I said so. He then said that he was so upset that he had experienced trouble sleeping for two months. But he had found a solution to his problem. He told me that he was notorious for telling tall tales and that all that he had said about where the Trepang was and what he had seen was false. He claimed he just made it up.

He said the submarine was at its homeport in Groton, Connecticut that night, not beneath TWA Flight 800 when it was blown out of the sky. He said he didnt know anything about any exercise that was taking place and he had never heard of W-105, the large area off Long Island that is regularly used by the military for testing and training. He said at least twice that this was his story and he was sticking to it. That is a gag line that says, in effect, I am lying but dont expect me to admit it.

The transcripts of his conversations with his acquaintance and me have been printed out because they are the best evidence that he was not lying. He had no reason to lie to either one of us. What he says and the way he says it has the ring of truth. It is consistent with what we know from other sources. I asked him for references who would attest to his propensity to lie. He gave me one name, someone who had served on the Trepang. He doesnt know where he is now. The office manager of the firm where he worked for over a year attested to his honesty.

The fact that he was worried sick when we had our second conversation and was virtually begging me not to report what he said shows that the idea of claiming that he had told tall tales had not yet occurred to him. If he were a habitual liar, he would not lose a lot of sleep worrying about his lies. Unfortunately his stratagem casts a cloud over his credibility, giving the media an excuse for ignoring anything he says. We are printing a list of the officers and petty officers who were on the Trepang in 1996. We will try to locate and question them and FOIA their FBI 302s (interview reports). Your help is invited.

And now we have about a dozen witnesses who say that the crash of AA 587 near JFK started with a small explosion in the fuselage, before the plane started breaking up, and a surveillance camera photo showing the plane still flying but trailing smoke. And soon there will be the usual Freepers posting that those dozen witnesses are "unreliable".

Yeah. Sure. Just like the one hundred or so "unreliable" witnesses that saw a missile go up and hit TWA 800.

IMHO, we are being scammed about AA 587. By the same government people who scammed us about TWA 800.

a) I believe it WAS friendly fire, but that requires proof one way or another. DO you want so share something with the rest of the class?

b) I am as big a fan of the present administration as anyone, but the only way to clean up the lack of credibility in the White House, is to stop covering for the previous occupants and be HONEST with the people who elected them. sorry.

When the government controls the agencies doing the investigating, and the conglomerates control the news media doing the reporting, it isn't hard at all. They've officially maintained the coverup on the JFK assassination for the past 40 years. They're still planting TV programs showing cartoons of TWA 800 breaking up due to a center fuel tank explosion.

This article is bunk: How could the sub have "...debris falling around them on film from the periscope" if it was doing "...an emergency dive, crash dive, to avoid being hit by the debris"? I hate to let common sense ruin a good conspiracy.....

"This article is bunk: How could the sub have "...debris falling around them on film from the periscope" if it was doing "...an emergency dive, crash dive, to avoid being hit by the debris"? I hate to let common sense ruin a good conspiracy....."

I see Irvine is in a lying death spiral. Now his "witness" claims his submarine "crash dived" when TWA 800 broke apart above it. Maybe someone can explain how a submarine with a 30 foot draft can "crash dive" in water 120 feet deep. Any submariners out there that can offer some insight into what is involved in a crash dive. Also, can any submariners offer some insight into how common it was for the boat's Corpsman and Comm O to be the only two guys above deck on a surfaced submarine.

Well, since I once served on USS TREPANG, I guess I can answer this one. We usually run on the surface until we get to the 100 fathom curve (600 feet for those in Denver). But if something was going on that we didn't want to be a part of, we could submerge in much less than 120 feet of water. Trust me on this ;-)

By the way, TREPANG's weapons shipping hatch, and parts of her crews mess and enlisted berthing are in the Submarine exhibit in the National Museum of American History.

Man, you ought to be able to answer a lot of questions on this one. Here's a few: 1. Would you "crash dive" in 20 fathoms of water. 2. How long does it take to crash dive. 3. Is the top of the sail (where Beer says he was standing) called the bridge. 4. Would the OOD normally be accompanied only by the Corpsman on a surfaced submarine.

If my memory serves correctly, upon separation from military (or civilian federal) service where the member had access to classified info, the member must sign a document promising not to discuss (or write a book!)about said classified information. If this is violated, former military personnel can be called up for Active Duty for their Court Martial. Even old retired guys. I assume everything a submariner does while underway is classified. Regardless of whether or not the plane went down right over Chief Beer's head, by revealing the location of his sub on a particular night may have violated DoD security policy.

One of the first things they teach you at Navy Boot Camp is that when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME ;-)

It is obvious that the Xlintoon administration did not want Flight 800 to be any kind of missile attack, friendly or terrorist, and that they went to great lengths to cover up the reports of those who saw the missile(s). I don't blame the guy for being scared.

I was speaking more of operational security matters having to do with US Navy submarine activity. When you went on a cruise, did you tell your family "I'll call you from Guam in two months!!" I assume not. "Assume" is not a bad word under these circumstances. I reviewed the facts and arrived at what I thought was the likely outcome. I "assume" that the level of OPSEC governing the opearational activities of USAF U-2s is similar to that of USN subs. Former operators of either should not discuss operational matters with internet reporters.

There were many witnesses who saw a missile but the government and the press called them mistaken or liars when they referred to them at all. Many of the witnesses were told in an intimidating manner that they were mistaken and that was crazy to talk about it at all. It does not need great numbers of people keeping their lips sealed, only the cooperation of the press and the relentless repetition of the official story.

"IMHO, we are being scammed about AA 587. By the same government people who scammed us about TWA 800. Reid is the SECOND SHOE BOMBER."

I've never believed the "official" TWA 800 story, but the official AA 587 explanation is much more plausible. There are a lot of questions regarding the mass of the composite rudder the French use on this model of Airbus. Boeing doesn't use composites in this area due to the tendency to flutter under certain conditions, such as what might have happened with AA 587.

I've heard that there might not have been enough separation between it and a 747(?) in front of it and maybe AA 587 encountered some vortices that contributed to the tail flutter. Tail flutter can be incredibly violent and quick and certainly could have caused AA587 to crash.

Interesting article. I'm suspicious of the guy who calls Irvine one day, and then the next day happens to run into Beers and his story. I'm also curious as to why Irvine wasn't taping Beers at the start of the interview.

On the other hand, the article has a few details that tend to confirm the story. I hope Beers doesn't get depressed and shoot himself five or six times while holding the gun in an oven mitt.

A war that has not been declared which could go on indefinitely. So when will we get to criticize the current administration?

I don't know. But the Senator from So. Dakota seems to think the time has come. After all, there are elections to be won. To hell with the security of the United States and it's people. With people like little Tommy Dash Hole, God and country come far behind party and power.

Thanks for the info. It's good to have an actual submariner around to verify some of the theories around here. So if we are to believe Beers, we need to accept that the USS Trepang was operating covertly, in a classified exercise, on the surface, a couple miles off the shore of Long Island in broad daylight. That in the time it took for TWA 800 to begin its self-destruction to the time it hit the water (approx 1 minute) the Pepsi sipping OOD was able to absorb the situation and order a crash dive in water he wouldn't normally operate submerged in. And finally, that a submarine that takes a couple minutes to crash dive, did so in time to film pieces of the wreckage hitting the water.

And if we are to believe Irvine, his witness offers conclusive evidence the Navy was involved in a shootdown of TWA 800, although he offers no evidence to support the claim and not even his new witness would state such a thing. In fact, he didn't even claim to see a missile. Irvine manipulates his relatively uninformative interview to try and prove his other unfounded theories. His assumption that the unidentified surface radar tracks are Navy submarines that subsequently dive when TWA 800 blows up, falls apart when you consider the only contact that could match Beer's description of his boat is the "30 knot track". Do you ever recall making 30 knots while surfaced? And if you did, would the OOD be on the bridge accompanied by a bored corpsman sharing his Pepsi's. And then imagine converting that 30 knots into a crash dive. Bow planes or not, that would be a heck of a ride. If the 30 knot track isn't the Trepang, than either the Trepang doesn't show up on radar, or it isn't within 5 miles of the accident site. Either possiblity sinks Irvine's brilliant analysis.

Bottomline, Irvine is a fraud. His witness created a story that is almost impossible to believe, and Irvine bit off on it, hook line and sinker. So much for accuracy in the media.

Almost every sentence you wrote is completely contrary to the facts before you. Beers said their activity was not classified. The submariner here said the Trepang can dive in even shallower water. The TWA crash was not "in broad daylight." The Trepang could have filmed falling debris regardless of the time it took it to dive. There are radar tracks other than the 30-knot track.

Bottomline, you don't know what you're talking about.

But I agree with you on one thing..... Reed does overstate the sailor's statements. The sailor was not saying the Navy did it, and he didn't even say a missile did it. But the sailor did say there were other Navy vessels in the area and he said "Im uncomfortable with saying what we was actually doing." Why would that be if their activities were not classified?

Reed does overstate the sailor's statements. The sailor was not saying the Navy did it, and he didn't even say a missile did it. But the sailor did say there were other Navy vessels in the area and he said "Im uncomfortable with saying what we was actually doing." Why would that be if their activities were not classified?

From Reed Irvines partial transcript:

I: He said they were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. Thats interesting because he never said-- Oh, he said, Ive said that in public, but I had no record of him...

B: Oh shit. I dont think anything we did off Long Island was classified.

The TWA flight exploded due to an anamoly in the electrical system which somehow blew up the gas tanks. If not, then why have our troops not discovered a videotape of the event and celebration of same at some terrorist camp in Afgahnistan? Our intel guys (or legitimate media) would know by now. I assume all of this, of course (ha ha).

a) I cannot answer that at this time; b) sometimes the truth is really nasty and the populace has the right NOT to know; c) the current administration is busy getting down to business; and d) W has no interest in causing any more scandals. It's called "CLASS."

The disturbing aspect of the AA 587 crash is that ALL of the witnesses who watched the airplane climb out over the beach and had a clear view of the plane, say exactly the same two things:

1. The first visible sign of trouble was a small explosion at the root of a wing, most saying it was the right wing.

2. The wing and tail departed the aircraft at just about the same time. A boater with the closest view of events actually thought that the wing had STRUCK the tail assembly as it departed, both events being so close in time to each other.

In addition to the above, a bridge surveillance camera with a distant view of the crash shows the aircraft TRAILING SMOKE, which would not be a result of the tail departing the aircraft as the cause of the crash.

Also, I have a great deal of trouble understanding how the aircraft broke up completely in the air as a result of loss of the fin and rudder. Loss of control and crashing, yes. But not total destruction of the aircraft IN THE AIR.

Maybe the CIA will come up with a couple more ridiculous cartoons purporting to show how all the above took place, as they did for the benefit of every TV program that has been shown dealing with the crash of TWA 800.

For many years, I held off a friend of mine on this subject. He is a retired Admiral who says that he would not believe that several shiploads of sailors would keep something like this secret. Someone would talk. Well, now someone has talked.

Another piece of information making the rounds among Medical Corps types is that the man who actually launched the missile is presently in a mental institution. This comes from a physician whose security clearance is so high that he has worked in the most secret medical facility maintained by the military (sorry, I won't say which one it is). I tend to believe anything this person says, but certainly can't prove it.

"Almost every sentence you wrote is completely contrary to the facts before you."

Let's take a look at that. Your first point "Beers said their activity was not classified." I didn't say he did. That was Irvine's input. But Beers did say what I highlighted in bold print. He says his sub was a couple miles off Long Island and it is a fact that when TWA 800 exploded it was still daylight.Your next point "The submariner here said the Trepang can dive in even shallower water."Actually, what he said is it could submerge in shallower water. According to Beers' buddy, Beer's said the sub crash dived. Big difference. Your next point "The TWA crash was not "in broad daylight.""Really? Several eyewitnesses reported observing TWA 800 before it exploded. One even reported watching the right wing fall off. It must have been light enough for eyewitnesses to see an airliner at 13,000ft while standing at least eight miles away on Long Island. And surely if you can see an airliner 8 miles away, you must be able to see a surfaced submarine a couple miles away. Are you saying eyewitnesses might be wrong? Next point: "The Trepang could have filmed falling debris regardless of the time it took it to dive." I suppose. But how often does a submarine use its periscope on the surface? Final point: "There are radar tracks other than the 30-knot track." Sure, but find me one that matches Beer's description other than the 30 knot track. There isn't one.

My final point...I don't believe anything I wrote is contrary to the facts. What is clear is that the "facts" as presented by Irvine are either contridictory or impossible and for the most part, assumptions based on his understanding of the facts. Again, I say, if his goal is accuracy in media, he is a fraud.

With regard to Irvine being the "real thing", I guess you'd have to define the real thing. What exactly does he do? Reveal unsupported testimony from unwilling witnesses? As far as the "classified" thing, I believe that is all the creation of a group of professional conspiracy artists who make a living off this stuff (ie Reed Irvine). Note that he is the only one claiming there was a classified exercise.With regard to the 30 knot track...we all read the same article. It is very clear the Trepang was supposedly directly below TWA 800. In fact, it was so close the OOD supposedly felt the need to "crash dive" to avoid the debris. There isn't another track within five miles of the crashsite when TWA 800 exploded. What other track could possibly represent the sub?

I suppose. But how often does a submarine use its periscope on the surface?

Again you are showing your ignorance of these things. A submarine almost always has its periscope up on the surface, especially in busy traffic areas. Both to keep track of surface contacts and navigation aides.

Here is the radar map, the 33 knot target is not TREPANG, or any other submarine. While submarines may be able to exceed 25 knots underwater, they are much slower on the surface.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.